Columbia 2011! Forum

[akikaze]

A thing about LSN: it strikes me as a self-selecting pool for people who have the stats and (frankly) little else. At Columbia, the median LSAT is 172 and yet that means that 50% of people have that or below, with 25% at 170 or below. And I just don't see enough green dots to think that we're getting the whole story. People who have excellent softs, etc. don't seem to post on there.

With the TFA experience, a solid GPA (ideally from a reputable univ.), and a 172, I would say that you're definitely under consideration at Harvard.

You're my new favorite TLSer

(I was "held" at Harvard though.. just happy to not be a ding *yet* lol)

Give it a few more weeks, see where the chips fall, and if you're not satisfied with what you've got, send in a LOCI and maybe another recommendation to Harvard. TFA has helped place a number of my friends with worse LSATs (but slightly higher GPAs) from Berkeley into that school.

[arism87]

A thing about LSN: it strikes me as a self-selecting pool for people who have the stats and (frankly) little else. At Columbia, the median LSAT is 172 and yet that means that 50% of people have that or below, with 25% at 170 or below. And I just don't see enough green dots to think that we're getting the whole story. People who have excellent softs, etc. don't seem to post on there.

With the TFA experience, a solid GPA (ideally from a reputable univ.), and a 172, I would say that you're definitely under consideration at Harvard.

What are you basing this bullshit on? You win stupid post of the week.

GIVE ME MY MOMENT! LET ME BE DISILLUSIONED IF I WANT!

Man, can't get a break this week.

[WestOfTheRest]

A thing about LSN: it strikes me as a self-selecting pool for people who have the stats and (frankly) little else. At Columbia, the median LSAT is 172 and yet that means that 50% of people have that or below, with 25% at 170 or below. And I just don't see enough green dots to think that we're getting the whole story. People who have excellent softs, etc. don't seem to post on there.

With the TFA experience, a solid GPA (ideally from a reputable univ.), and a 172, I would say that you're definitely under consideration at Harvard.

What are you basing this bullshit on? You win stupid post of the week.

GIVE ME MY MOMENT! LET ME BE DISILLUSIONED IF I WANT!

Man, can't get a break this week.

Lol, I still think you have a great shot, but that post was baseless and outright bullshit.

[Knock]

No vomit out here in Cali. No GULC packet either, so still holding out hope.

[Evrydyhonestliar]

Vomit free in the Philly suburbs. Ah well, what can you do? When historically, have they started to send out WL's and dings?

[arism87]

Vomit free in the Philly suburbs. Ah well, what can you do? When historically, have they started to send out WL's and dings?

Early February, IIRC?

[Evrydyhonestliar]

Vomit free in the Philly suburbs. Ah well, what can you do? When historically, have they started to send out WL's and dings?

Early February, IIRC?

Oy, I would wait for an acceptance, but that is not worth the wait haha

[r6_philly]

A thing about LSN: it strikes me as a self-selecting pool for people who have the stats and (frankly) little else. At Columbia, the median LSAT is 172 and yet that means that 50% of people have that or below, with 25% at 170 or below. And I just don't see enough green dots to think that we're getting the whole story. People who have excellent softs, etc. don't seem to post on there.

You can pause and resume this theory after I get a VCE. That is all. Thank you.

[akikaze]

]
Lol, I still think you have a great shot, but that post was baseless and outright bullshit.

Oy. I think it's pretty clear that a lot of the non-numbers focused applicants do not post on or even care about LSN. We know from the school itself that 25% of the admits were at 169/170 or below (depending on cycle as the 25th percentile was 169 until 2009), and yet only 10% of the green dots on LSN are at those LSATs or below. Exactly what part of this (very simple) idea do you not understand?

[Knock]

]
Lol, I still think you have a great shot, but that post was baseless and outright bullshit.

Oy. I think it's pretty clear that a lot of the non-numbers focused applicants do not post on or even care about LSN. We know from the school itself that 25% of the admits were at 169/170 or below (depending on cycle as the 25th percentile was 169 until 2009), and yet only 10% of the green dots on LSN are at those LSATs or below. Exactly what part of this (very simple) idea do you not understand?

A lot of those are URMs too though.

[akikaze]

]
Lol, I still think you have a great shot, but that post was baseless and outright bullshit.

Oy. I think it's pretty clear that a lot of the non-numbers focused applicants do not post on or even care about LSN. We know from the school itself that 25% of the admits were at 169/170 or below (depending on cycle as the 25th percentile was 169 until 2009), and yet only 10% of the green dots on LSN are at those LSATs or below. Exactly what part of this (very simple) idea do you not understand?

A lot of those are URMs too though.

Right, but even so there should be far more of them on LSN to get a realistic picture of the admissions landscape. Moreover, I don't think that anywhere close to 25% of most law school classes are URM; at Columbia it's 17%.

[r6_philly]

]
Lol, I still think you have a great shot, but that post was baseless and outright bullshit.

Oy. I think it's pretty clear that a lot of the non-numbers focused applicants do not post on or even care about LSN. We know from the school itself that 25% of the admits were at 169/170 or below (depending on cycle as the 25th percentile was 169 until 2009), and yet only 10% of the green dots on LSN are at those LSATs or below. Exactly what part of this (very simple) idea do you not understand?

You fail to account for the 20-25% people stuck at "pending".

[Knock]

]
Lol, I still think you have a great shot, but that post was baseless and outright bullshit.

Oy. I think it's pretty clear that a lot of the non-numbers focused applicants do not post on or even care about LSN. We know from the school itself that 25% of the admits were at 169/170 or below (depending on cycle as the 25th percentile was 169 until 2009), and yet only 10% of the green dots on LSN are at those LSATs or below. Exactly what part of this (very simple) idea do you not understand?

A lot of those are URMs too though.

Right, but even so there should be far more of them on LSN to get a realistic picture of the admissions landscape. Moreover, I don't think that anywhere close to 25% of most law school classes are URM; at Columbia it's 17%.

And of course not every URM is below 25th%.

[arism87]

Oy. I think it's pretty clear that a lot of the non-numbers focused applicants do not post on or even care about LSN. We know from the school itself that 25% of the admits were at 169/170 or below (depending on cycle as the 25th percentile was 169 until 2009), and yet only 10% of the green dots on LSN are at those LSATs or below. Exactly what part of this (very simple) idea do you not understand?

A lot of those are URMs too though.

Right, but even so there should be far more of them on LSN to get a realistic picture of the admissions landscape. Moreover, I don't think that anywhere close to 25% of most law school classes are URM; at Columbia it's 17%.

And of course not every URM is below 25th%.

ITT: it is decided that arism is going to HARVARD!!

[r6_philly]

ITT: it is decided that arism is going to HARVARD!!

Knock and I to Stanford.

[akikaze]

Didn't say that either, but hold up -- I'm seeing if the stats are for admitted applicants or for entering class because that would actually change things.

But I like the optimism.

[r6_philly]

Didn't say that either, but hold up -- I'm seeing if the stats are for admitted applicants or for entering class because that would actually change things.

But I like the optimism.

I know you are ignoring my posts, but the pending (not updated) files are most likely to be the lower number admits because the below 25 people are usually admitted last - hence more likely to not update their LSN.

[Knock]

ITT: it is decided that arism is going to HARVARD!!

Knock and I to Stanford.

[akikaze]

Didn't say that either, but hold up -- I'm seeing if the stats are for admitted applicants or for entering class because that would actually change things.

But I like the optimism.

I know you are ignoring my posts, but the pending (not updated) files are most likely to be the lower number admits because the below 25 people are usually admitted last - hence more likely to not update their LSN.

No not at all hehe. I tend to focus on previous cycles since this one is not yet complete. I'd also point out, though, that Columbia seems to have a trend of privileging very high LSAT admits in the beginning of the cycle, and then focusing on GPA later since high ones are easier to come by.

[arism87]

Didn't say that either, but hold up -- I'm seeing if the stats are for admitted applicants or for entering class because that would actually change things.

But I like the optimism.

I know you are ignoring my posts, but the pending (not updated) files are most likely to be the lower number admits because the below 25 people are usually admitted last - hence more likely to not update their LSN.

I always assumed they were held forever until they decided on another school/were rejected and never bothered to come back to update

[r6_philly]

Didn't say that either, but hold up -- I'm seeing if the stats are for admitted applicants or for entering class because that would actually change things.

But I like the optimism.

I know you are ignoring my posts, but the pending (not updated) files are most likely to be the lower number admits because the below 25 people are usually admitted last - hence more likely to not update their LSN.

I always assumed they were held forever until they decided on another school/were rejected and never bothered to come back to update

Or admitted at the last minute after all other decisions are in so there is no need to update. Either way, the swing of this group could make or break akikaze's theory, making it statistically significant, and making the theory's unsound.

[akikaze]

Didn't say that either, but hold up -- I'm seeing if the stats are for admitted applicants or for entering class because that would actually change things.

But I like the optimism.

I know you are ignoring my posts, but the pending (not updated) files are most likely to be the lower number admits because the below 25 people are usually admitted last - hence more likely to not update their LSN.

I always assumed they were held forever until they decided on another school/were rejected and never bothered to come back to update

Agree; I assume that borderline candidates who didn't update were not admitted.

[arism87]

Didn't say that either, but hold up -- I'm seeing if the stats are for admitted applicants or for entering class because that would actually change things.

But I like the optimism.

I know you are ignoring my posts, but the pending (not updated) files are most likely to be the lower number admits because the below 25 people are usually admitted last - hence more likely to not update their LSN.

I always assumed they were held forever until they decided on another school/were rejected and never bothered to come back to update

Or admitted at the last minute after all other decisions are in so there is no need to update. Either way, the swing of this group could make or break akikaze's theory, making it statistically significant, and making the theory's unsound.

Idk I think her main point still stands: the number of people who update to "admitted" with numbers below 25ths is lower than it should be if the sample were representative, so it might lead us to be overly pessimistic.

Edit to add: I fully expect to eventually be rejected at Harvard, this is not me trying to find hope!

[WestOfTheRest]

]
Lol, I still think you have a great shot, but that post was baseless and outright bullshit.

Oy. I think it's pretty clear that a lot of the non-numbers focused applicants do not post on or even care about LSN. We know from the school itself that 25% of the admits were at 169/170 or below (depending on cycle as the 25th percentile was 169 until 2009), and yet only 10% of the green dots on LSN are at those LSATs or below. Exactly what part of this (very simple) idea do you not understand?

You're making claims regarding peoples softs solely on the basis of them having high numbers. Do you think maybe that the people with the highest numbers likely have the best softs since they likely care the most. Your reasoning is not sound. People who care about the process not people who only care about numbers are likely to research the process and find sites like lsn and tls.

[akikaze]

I don't mean to discourage or encourage anyone, but I have met enough people over the years who were below median on LSAT and/or GPA who made it to Harvard and Columbia to think that LSN is overly pessimistic. (And that it is a self-selecting sample of people...)

Yale and Stanford, not so much (unless URM).

@CastleRock OK, excise the first sentence from my comment. Maybe people with the best softs are passionate and do post on these websites? I don't know that. But I still believe that enough of them must not because I don't see nearly enough admits in the bottom half/lower quartile on these graphs.

I have to say that I was playing with the idea of LS for a long time, finally found the right reasons, and didn't bother registering until very recently.